Re: Evidence for the simulation argument

2007-04-19 Thread Bruno Marchal
Le 07-mars-07, à 04:40, Jesse Mazer wrote : http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list/browse_thread/thread/ 0d5915764b7f3e08/fc56caf79ce58750?#fc56caf79ce58750 Jesse That is: 14 Mar 2001: Jesse wrote (in part): A lot of people have a lot of different ideas about TOE's on this

Re: Evidence for the simulation argument

2007-04-05 Thread Bruno Marchal
Well thanks Russell. Note that I was not doing a critic. I have the usual problem with the word philosophy, which in many places (on the continent means just marxism or the more (postmodern) relativism. But here I was mainly complaining that sometimes people talk like if I was proposing

Re: Evidence for the simulation argument

2007-04-03 Thread Bruno Marchal
Hi Mark, Just a preliminary remark before I comment your post. Contrary to what Russell says in his book, I am not at all a philosopher, I am not trying to propose a view of the world or a conception of reality. As I said in the joining post my initial goal was just to understand molecular

Re: Evidence for the simulation argument

2007-04-03 Thread Russell Standish
On Tue, Apr 03, 2007 at 05:37:25PM +0200, Bruno Marchal wrote: Hi Mark, Just a preliminary remark before I comment your post. Contrary to what Russell says in his book, I am not at all a philosopher, I am not trying to propose a view of the world or a conception of reality. As I I

Re: Evidence for the simulation argument

2007-04-02 Thread Mark Peaty
Bruno: With comp, what holds 'your lot together are the relation between numbers. The apparent third person infinite regression stops at the level of those relations. The first person is most probably confronted with many infinities, but this should not be considered as problematical.

Re: Evidence for the simulation argument

2007-04-02 Thread John Mikes
Mark, you asked interesting questions, but I think the fundamental ones are still 'out there': MP:(bold and in bold): I mean the big and unanswered question is WHERE are numbers? I would ask (joining your heresy): 1. Where did numbers come from? (an answer may be: They are GOD to believe in). 2.

Re: Evidence for the simulation argument

2007-03-28 Thread Bruno Marchal
Hi Brent, As you can guess, I am searching an old post of view which I intended to answer, and then I take opportunity to comment some other one, on some point which are perhaps somehow important ... Le 17-mars-07, à 21:19, Brent Meeker a écrit : Bruno Marchal wrote: Le 17-mars-07, à

Re: Evidence for the simulation argument

2007-03-28 Thread John Mikes
That's all fine and I appreciate the position (once we 'have gotten' to circumstances providing the idea of a Loeb machine) - what I want to inject is Dr. Johnson's stone, which is not 'mind-stuff'' and in his shoe DID HURT (his mind). Not vice versa. Please, let it go as a remark outside the

Re: Evidence for the simulation argument

2007-03-22 Thread Bruno Marchal
Le 21-mars-07, à 17:41, Brent Meeker a écrit : Bruno Marchal wrote: Le 20-mars-07, à 18:05, Brent Meeker a écrit : What are those relations? Is it a matter of the provenance of the numbers, e.g. being computed by some subprocess of the UD? Or is an inherent relation like being

Re: Evidence for the simulation argument

2007-03-21 Thread Bruno Marchal
Le 20-mars-07, à 18:05, Brent Meeker a écrit : What are those relations? Is it a matter of the provenance of the numbers, e.g. being computed by some subprocess of the UD? Or is an inherent relation like being relatively prime? It is an inherent relation like being prime, or being the

Re: Evidence for the simulation argument

2007-03-21 Thread Brent Meeker
Bruno Marchal wrote: Le 20-mars-07, à 18:05, Brent Meeker a écrit : What are those relations? Is it a matter of the provenance of the numbers, e.g. being computed by some subprocess of the UD? Or is an inherent relation like being relatively prime? It is an inherent relation like

Re: Evidence for the simulation argument

2007-03-20 Thread Bruno Marchal
Le 06-mars-07, à 07:44, Mohsen Ravanbakhsh a écrit : Thank you for welcoming me Mark, I agree with you about the problem with the concept of entropy, but not all your points. Actually I like this hypothesis, and as Bruno put it we might be able to describe the Why question about physical

Re: Evidence for the simulation argument

2007-03-20 Thread Bruno Marchal
Le 06-mars-07, à 09:44, Mark Peaty a écrit : Thank you Bruno! You and Russell between you have managed to strike some sparks of illumination from the rocky inside of my skull. There is no beacon fire to report but I start to get a glimmering of why you want to *assume* comp and see

Re: Evidence for the simulation argument

2007-03-20 Thread Brent Meeker
Bruno Marchal wrote: Le 06-mars-07, à 09:44, Mark Peaty a écrit : Thank you Bruno! You and Russell between you have managed to strike some sparks of illumination from the rocky inside of my skull. There is no beacon fire to report but I start to get a glimmering of why you want to

Re: Evidence for the simulation argument

2007-03-19 Thread Russell Standish
On Mon, Mar 19, 2007 at 01:03:04PM +1100, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: I don't mean the white rabbits from the Turing machine, I mean the ones outside it. If we accept that an abstract machine can just exist, without benefit of a separate physical reality, why not also accept that

Re: Evidence for the simulation argument

2007-03-19 Thread Stathis Papaioannou
On 3/19/07, Russell Standish [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Mon, Mar 19, 2007 at 01:03:04PM +1100, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: I don't mean the white rabbits from the Turing machine, I mean the ones outside it. If we accept that an abstract machine can just exist, without benefit of a

Re: Evidence for the simulation argument

2007-03-18 Thread Russell Standish
On Sat, Mar 17, 2007 at 03:25:51PM +1100, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: One response to this idea is that the non-computational worlds are overrun with white rabbits, whereas the computational worlds allow the calculation of a local measure, such as Russell Standish has described, which explains

Re: Evidence for the simulation argument

2007-03-18 Thread Russell Standish
On Sat, Mar 17, 2007 at 04:02:49PM +0100, Bruno Marchal wrote: I have not extracted the measure (nor do I think Russell did to be honest), but I have extracted the logic of certainty (credibility one) associated to each hypostasis, and those corresponding to Plotinus Matter (or our measure

Re: Evidence for the simulation argument

2007-03-18 Thread Stathis Papaioannou
I don't mean the white rabbits from the Turing machine, I mean the ones outside it. If we accept that an abstract machine can just exist, without benefit of a separate physical reality, why not also accept that non-computational talking white rabbits can also just exist? That is, why should

Re: Evidence for the simulation argument

2007-03-17 Thread Stathis Papaioannou
On 3/17/07, Brent Meeker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: But what is Platonia - Tegmarks all mathematically consistent universe? or Bruno's Peano arithmetic - or maybe Torny's finite arithmetic (which would be a much smaller everything). And while we're at it, why exclude non-mathematical

Re: Evidence for the simulation argument

2007-03-17 Thread Bruno Marchal
Le 17-mars-07, à 00:11, Brent Meeker a écrit : But what is Platonia - Tegmarks all mathematically consistent universe? or Bruno's Peano arithmetic - or maybe Torny's finite arithmetic (which would be a much smaller everything). And how do things run in Platonia? Do we need temporal

Re: Evidence for the simulation argument

2007-03-17 Thread John M
on hold my regret for the greatgrandkids for now. Regards John M - Original Message - From: Bruno Marchal To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Saturday, March 17, 2007 11:02 AM Subject: Re: Evidence for the simulation argument Le 17-mars-07, à 00:11, Brent

Re: Evidence for the simulation argument

2007-03-17 Thread Brent Meeker
Bruno Marchal wrote: Le 17-mars-07, à 00:11, Brent Meeker a écrit : But what is Platonia - Tegmarks all mathematically consistent universe? or Bruno's Peano arithmetic - or maybe Torny's finite arithmetic (which would be a much smaller everything). And how do things run in Platonia?

Re: Evidence for the simulation argument

2007-03-16 Thread Torgny Tholerus
Stathis Papaioannou skrev: Suppose the universe were infinite, as per Tegmark Level 1, Tegmarks argument does not require that the universe is infinite. It only requires that the universe is *very* big. So the universe can still be finite. If the universe is *enough* big it will contain

Re: Evidence for the simulation argument

2007-03-16 Thread Torgny Tholerus
Brent Meeker skrev: Torgny Tholerus wrote: I have written some more about infinity, in the paper attached (3 pages), called Infinity Does Not Exist. Well it doesn't exist under the assumption that it doesn't exist. I actually agree with you that it doesn't exist - though not

Re: Evidence for the simulation argument

2007-03-16 Thread Torgny Tholerus
John M skrev: I looked at your paper, interesting. One question: what do you mean by "exist" (Notably: "does NOT exist)? We think about it (no matter in how vague terms and weak understanding), we talk about it, our mind has a place in our thinking for that term, -

Re: Evidence for the simulation argument

2007-03-16 Thread Stathis Papaioannou
On 3/16/07, Brent Meeker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Stathis Papaioannou wrote: I think it's more like asking why are we aware of 17 and other small numbers but no integers greater that say 10^10^20 - i.e. almost all of them. A theory that just says all integers exist doesn't

Re: Evidence for the simulation argument

2007-03-16 Thread Jesse Mazer
Torgny Tholerus wrote: When it concerns mathematics, I have developped a set of integers that I myself call unnatural numbers. An unnatural number U is an integer that is bigger than every natural number N. And the inverse of an unnatural number (1/U) is more close to zero than any real

Re: Evidence for the simulation argument

2007-03-16 Thread Brent Meeker
Stathis Papaioannou wrote: On 3/16/07, *Brent Meeker* [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Stathis Papaioannou wrote: I think it's more like asking why are we aware of 17 and other small numbers but no integers greater that say 10^10^20 -

Re: Evidence for the simulation argument

2007-03-16 Thread Stathis Papaioannou
On 3/17/07, Brent Meeker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: There are factors creating a local measure, even if the Plenitude is infinite and measureless. Although the chance that you will be you is zero or almost zero if you consider the Plenitude as God's big lucky dip, you have to be someone

Re: Evidence for the simulation argument

2007-03-16 Thread Brent Meeker
Stathis Papaioannou wrote: On 3/17/07, *Brent Meeker* [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: There are factors creating a local measure, even if the Plenitude is infinite and measureless. Although the chance that you will be you is zero or almost zero if

Re: Evidence for the simulation argument

2007-03-16 Thread Stathis Papaioannou
On 3/17/07, Brent Meeker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Stathis Papaioannou wrote: If only one part of the possible actually exists, that isn't like being the one person in a million who has to win the lottery, it is more like waking up to find that money has miraculously appeared in your

Re: Evidence for the simulation argument

2007-03-16 Thread Brent Meeker
Stathis Papaioannou wrote: On 3/17/07, *Brent Meeker* [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Stathis Papaioannou wrote: If only one part of the possible actually exists, that isn't like being the one person in a million who has to win the lottery, it

Re: Evidence for the simulation argument - and Thanks and a dumb question.

2007-03-15 Thread Bruno Marchal
Le 13-mars-07, à 18:55, Brent Meeker a écrit : Of course this is assuming that QM (which was discovered by applying reductionist methods) is the correct EXACT theory - which is extremely doubtful given its incompatibility with general relativity. All right. But note that both String

Re: Evidence for the simulation argument - and Thanks and a dumb question.

2007-03-15 Thread Bruno Marchal
Le 14-mars-07, à 04:42, Stathis Papaioannou a écrit : On 3/13/07, Bruno Marchal [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: You could say that a hydrogen atom cannot be reduced to an electron + proton because it exhibits behaviour not exhibited in any of its components; Nor by any juxtaposition of

Re: Evidence for the simulation argument

2007-03-15 Thread Bruno Marchal
Le 14-mars-07, à 08:51, Torgny Tholerus a écrit : Infinity is a logically impossible concept. I have read your little text. It is not so bad, actually ;). Some early greeks have also defended the idea that GOD is finite. But I am not convinced. I think that Plotinus' idea that God is

Re: Evidence for the simulation argument

2007-03-15 Thread Torgny Tholerus
Bruno Marchal skrev: Le 14-mars-07, 08:51, Torgny Tholerus a crit : Infinity is a logically impossible concept. I have read your little text. It is not so bad, actually ;). Some early greeks have also defended the idea that GOD is finite. But I am not convinced. I think that Plotinus'

Re: Evidence for the simulation argument - and Thanks and a dumb question.

2007-03-15 Thread Brent Meeker
Bruno Marchal wrote: Le 14-mars-07, à 04:42, Stathis Papaioannou a écrit : On 3/13/07, *Bruno Marchal* [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: You could say that a hydrogen atom cannot be reduced to an electron + proton because it exhibits behaviour not exhibited in any of its

Re: Evidence for the simulation argument

2007-03-15 Thread Brent Meeker
Torgny Tholerus wrote: Bruno Marchal skrev: Le 14-mars-07, à 08:51, Torgny Tholerus a écrit : Infinity is a logically impossible concept. I have read your little text. It is not so bad, actually ;). Some early greeks have also defended the idea that GOD is finite. But I am not

Re: Evidence for the simulation argument

2007-03-15 Thread John M
Subject: Re: Evidence for the simulation argument Le 14-mars-07, à 08:51, Torgny Tholerus a écrit : (among others) Infinity is a logically impossible concept. Infinity Does Not Exist. -- Torgny Tholerus --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received

Re: Evidence for the simulation argument - and Thanks and a dumb question.

2007-03-15 Thread John M
- Original Message - From: Brent Meeker To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Thursday, March 15, 2007 2:30 PM Subject: Re: Evidence for the simulation argument - and Thanks and a dumb question. Bruno Marchal wrote: Le 14-mars-07, à 04:42, Stathis Papaioannou

Re: Evidence for the simulation argument - and Thanks and a dumb question.

2007-03-15 Thread Brent Meeker
John M wrote: Bruno and Brent: Are we back at the Aris-total i.e. the sum considered more than its (material-only!) components? Complexity of an assemblage includes more than what a reductionist 'component-analysis' can verify. But components are only part of a reductionist model - it

Re: Evidence for the simulation argument

2007-03-15 Thread Brent Meeker
Stathis Papaioannou wrote: On 3/15/07, *Brent Meeker* [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: But these ideas illustrate a problem with everything-exists. Everything conceivable, i.e. not self-contradictory is so ill defined it seems

Re: Evidence for the simulation argument

2007-03-15 Thread Quentin Anciaux
Hi Brent, On Friday 16 March 2007 00:16:13 Brent Meeker wrote: Stathis Papaioannou wrote: On 3/15/07, *Brent Meeker* [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: But these ideas illustrate a problem with everything-exists. Everything conceivable, i.e. not

Re: Evidence for the simulation argument

2007-03-15 Thread Brent Meeker
Quentin Anciaux wrote: Hi Brent, On Friday 16 March 2007 00:16:13 Brent Meeker wrote: Stathis Papaioannou wrote: On 3/15/07, *Brent Meeker* [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: But these ideas illustrate a problem with everything-exists. Everything

Re: Evidence for the simulation argument - and Thanks and a dumb question.

2007-03-15 Thread Stathis Papaioannou
On 3/16/07, Bruno Marchal [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I don't know what you mean by a physical knots. In any case the identity of a knots (mathematical, physical) rely in its topology, not in such or such cartesian picture, even the concrete knots I put in my pocket. The knots looses its

Re: Evidence for the simulation argument

2007-03-14 Thread Mohsen Ravanbakhsh
Bent, Stathis, Suppose that space is discrete. It has some elementary unit. Let's call it SU. Suppose there are 3 of these units out there in a right triangular fashion( L shape) Then what is the distance between two distant angles? is it made up of some integer numbers of space unit? Pythagoras'

Re: Evidence for the simulation argument

2007-03-14 Thread Torgny Tholerus
Stathis Papaioannou skrev: On 3/13/07, Mohsen Ravanbakhsh [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Not necessarily. If you draw a diagonal on a square on a computer screen, it will be made up of a discrete number of pixels despite what Pythagoras' theorem calculates. Irrational in the real world

Re: Evidence for the simulation argument

2007-03-14 Thread Stathis Papaioannou
On 3/14/07, Torgny Tholerus [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Stathis Papaioannou skrev: On 3/13/07, Mohsen Ravanbakhsh [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: *Not necessarily. If you draw a diagonal on a square on a computer screen, it will be made up of a discrete number of pixels despite what Pythagoras'

Re: Evidence for the simulation argument

2007-03-14 Thread Torgny Tholerus
Stathis Papaioannou skrev: On 3/14/07, Torgny Tholerus [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Stathis Papaioannou skrev: How can you be sure? Maybe space is discrete. Yes, space (and time) is discrete. Everything in the universe is finite, and the universe itself is finite.

Re: Evidence for the simulation argument

2007-03-14 Thread Brent Meeker
Torgny Tholerus wrote: Stathis Papaioannou skrev: On 3/14/07, *Torgny Tholerus* [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Stathis Papaioannou skrev: How can you be sure? Maybe space is discrete. Yes, space (and time) is discrete. Everything in the universe is

Re: Evidence for the simulation argument

2007-03-14 Thread Stathis Papaioannou
On 3/15/07, Brent Meeker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Torgny Tholerus wrote: Stathis Papaioannou skrev: On 3/14/07, *Torgny Tholerus* [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Stathis Papaioannou skrev: How can you be sure? Maybe space is discrete. Yes, space (and

Re: Evidence for the simulation argument

2007-03-14 Thread Brent Meeker
Stathis Papaioannou wrote: On 3/15/07, *Brent Meeker* [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Torgny Tholerus wrote: Stathis Papaioannou skrev: On 3/14/07, *Torgny Tholerus* [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Evidence for the simulation argument

2007-03-13 Thread Mohsen Ravanbakhsh
*Why? Mathematical means nothing but not self-contradictory. Sherlock Holmes stories are mathematical. That doesn't mean Sherlock Holmes exists in some Platonic realm. * Brent, What do you mean by that? I do not get your point. Anyway I do not insist that it should be realizable. But I have

Re: Evidence for the simulation argument

2007-03-13 Thread Stathis Papaioannou
On 3/13/07, Mohsen Ravanbakhsh [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: *Why? Mathematical means nothing but not self-contradictory. Sherlock Holmes stories are mathematical. That doesn't mean Sherlock Holmes exists in some Platonic realm. * Brent, What do you mean by that? I do not get your point.

Re: Evidence for the simulation argument - and Thanks and a dumb question.

2007-03-13 Thread Bruno Marchal
Le 12-mars-07, à 12:37, Stathis Papaioannou a écrit : OK, but it seems that we are using reductionism differently. Perhaps. I am not so sure. You could say that a hydrogen atom cannot be reduced to an electron + proton because it exhibits behaviour not exhibited in any of its

Re: Evidence for the simulation argument

2007-03-13 Thread Mohsen Ravanbakhsh
*Not necessarily. If you draw a diagonal on a square on a computer screen, it will be made up of a discrete number of pixels despite what Pythagoras' theorem calculates. Irrational in the real world may just be an illusion.* I was trying to mark a distance in real world which is irrational

Re: Evidence for the simulation argument

2007-03-13 Thread Mark Peaty
Tangentially: Brent: 'doesn't mean Sherlock Holmes exists in some Platonic realm ...' MP: For those who occasionally like a clever and entertaining read unencumbered by deep social comment can I recommend the adventures of Ms Thursday Next in 'The Eyre Affair' a novel by Jasper FForde, and in

Re: Evidence for the simulation argument

2007-03-13 Thread Brent Meeker
Mohsen Ravanbakhsh wrote: /Why? Mathematical means nothing but not self-contradictory. Sherlock Holmes stories are mathematical. That doesn't mean Sherlock Holmes exists in some Platonic realm. / Brent, What do you mean by that? Mathematics is just assuming some axioms and

Re: Evidence for the simulation argument - and Thanks and a dumb question.

2007-03-13 Thread Brent Meeker
Bruno Marchal wrote: Le 12-mars-07, à 12:37, Stathis Papaioannou a écrit : OK, but it seems that we are using reductionism differently. Perhaps. I am not so sure. You could say that a hydrogen atom cannot be reduced to an electron + proton because it

Re: Evidence for the simulation argument

2007-03-13 Thread Mohsen Ravanbakhsh
Mathematics is just assuming some axioms and rules of inference and then proving theorems that follow from those. There's no restriction except that it should be consistent, i.e. not every statement should be a theorem. So you can regard a game of chess as a mathematical theorem or even a

Re: Evidence for the simulation argument

2007-03-13 Thread Brent Meeker
Mohsen Ravanbakhsh wrote: Mathematics is just assuming some axioms and rules of inference and then proving theorems that follow from those. There's no restriction except that it should be consistent, i.e. not every statement should be a theorem. So you can regard a game of chess as a

Re: Evidence for the simulation argument

2007-03-13 Thread Stathis Papaioannou
On 3/13/07, Mohsen Ravanbakhsh [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: *Not necessarily. If you draw a diagonal on a square on a computer screen, it will be made up of a discrete number of pixels despite what Pythagoras' theorem calculates. Irrational in the real world may just be an illusion. * I was

Re: Evidence for the simulation argument - and Thanks and a dumb question.

2007-03-13 Thread Stathis Papaioannou
On 3/13/07, Bruno Marchal [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: You could say that a hydrogen atom cannot be reduced to an electron + proton because it exhibits behaviour not exhibited in any of its components; Nor by any juxtaposition of its components in case of some prior entanglement. In that

Re: Evidence for the simulation argument - and Thanks and a dumb question.

2007-03-12 Thread Bruno Marchal
Le 11-mars-07, à 17:56, Stathis Papaioannou a écrit : Reductionism means breaking something up into simpler parts to explain it. What's wrong with that? Because, assuming comp, neither matter nor mind (including perception) can be break up into simpler parts to be explained. That is what

Re: Evidence for the simulation argument - and Thanks and a dumb question.

2007-03-12 Thread Stathis Papaioannou
OK, but it seems that we are using reductionism differently. You could say that a hydrogen atom cannot be reduced to an electron + proton because it exhibits behaviour not exhibited in any of its components; or you could say that it can be reduced to an electron + proton because these two

Re: Evidence for the simulation argument

2007-03-12 Thread Brent Meeker
Mohsen Ravanbakhsh wrote: /All actual measurements yield rational values. Using real numbers in the equations of physics is probably merely a convenience (since calculus is easier than finite differences). There is no evidence that defining an instantaneous state requires uncountable

Re: Evidence for the simulation argument - and Thanks and a dumb question.

2007-03-11 Thread Stathis Papaioannou
On 3/11/07, Mark Peaty [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: SP: ' ... it could take a long time to get there ... ' MP: But is that according to the time frame of the laughing devil who threw me in there and who remains safely out of reach of acceleration-induced time dilation, or my wailing ghost

Re: Evidence for the simulation argument - and Thanks and a dumb question.

2007-03-11 Thread Bruno Marchal
Le 10-mars-07, à 18:42, John M a écrit : I don't deny the usefulness of science (even if it is reductionist) ... How could science be reductionist? Science is the art of making hypotheses enough clear so as to make them doubtable and eventually testable. No scientist will ever say there is

Re: Evidence for the simulation argument - and Thanks and a dumb question.

2007-03-11 Thread John M
. John - Original Message - From: Bruno Marchal To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Sunday, March 11, 2007 10:45 AM Subject: Re: Evidence for the simulation argument - and Thanks and a dumb question. Le 10-mars-07, à 18:42, John M a écrit : I don't deny

Re: Evidence for the simulation argument - and Thanks and a dumb question.

2007-03-10 Thread Stathis Papaioannou
On 3/10/07, John Mikes [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: i ENVY YOU, guys, to know so much about BHs to speak of a singularity. I would not go further than according to what is said about them, they may wash off whatever got into and turn into - sort of - a singularity. Galaxies, whatever, fall into

Re: Evidence for the simulation argument - and Thanks and a dumb question.

2007-03-10 Thread John M
conclusions upon assumptions. No hard feelings, it is MY opinion, and I am absolutely no missionary. John M - Original Message - From: Quentin Anciaux To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Friday, March 09, 2007 6:03 PM Subject: Re: Evidence for the simulation argument

Re: Evidence for the simulation argument - and Thanks and a dumb question.

2007-03-10 Thread Jesse Mazer
John M: Cher Quentin, let me paraphrase (big): so someone had an assumption: BH. OK, everybody has the right to fantasize. Especially if it sounds helpful. Well, the basic assumption was more broad than that: it was that general relativity is a trustworthy theory of gravity. There's plenty

Re: Evidence for the simulation argument - and Thanks and a dumb question.

2007-03-10 Thread John Mikes
Dear Jesse, thanks for the cool and objective words. I take it back (not what I said: I mean the topic) further. Our edifice of physical science is a wonderful mental construct, balanced by applied math, all on quantities fitting the reduced models of historical observations from the hand-ax on.

Re: Evidence for the simulation argument - and Thanks and a dumb question.

2007-03-10 Thread Mark Peaty
SP: ' ... it could take a long time to get there ... ' MP: But is that according to the time frame of the laughing devil who threw me in there and who remains safely out of reach of acceleration-induced time dilation, or my wailing ghost which/who's mind and sensoria will be ever more

Re: Evidence for the simulation argument - and Thanks and a dumb question.

2007-03-09 Thread John Mikes
i ENVY YOU, guys, to know so much about BHs to speak of a singularity. I would not go further than according to what is said about them, they may wash off whatever got into and turn into - sort of - a singularity. Galaxies, whatever, fall into those hypothetical BHs and who knows how much Dark

Re: Evidence for the simulation argument - and Thanks and a dumb question.

2007-03-09 Thread Quentin Anciaux
Hi John, Singularity is just a name that means that the solutions of the equations describing the BH gives infinity... It's what is a singularity. Does the infinity is real (we must still be in accordance about what it means) is another question, but accepting GR as a true approximation of

Re: Evidence for the simulation argument - and Thanks and a dumb question.

2007-03-08 Thread Mark Peaty
SP:' You wouldn't necessarily be squashed if you were inside the event horizon of a black hole provided that it was massive enough. Being inside the event horizon is not the same as being inside the singularity.' MP: Two thoughts come to my suspicious mind. 1/ [Not far from the

Re: Evidence for the simulation argument

2007-03-08 Thread John M
in extension of ourselves. John - Original Message - From: Stathis Papaioannou To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Tuesday, March 06, 2007 8:46 PM Subject: Re: Evidence for the simulation argument SP wrote to BM: How so? The Many Worlds idea seems to imply that you survive

Re: Evidence for the simulation argument - and Thanks and a dumb question.

2007-03-08 Thread Stathis Papaioannou
On 3/9/07, Mark Peaty [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: MP: Two thoughts come to my suspicious mind. 1/ [Not far from the post-Freudian speculation :-] ... Attendance within the event horizon of a common or garden galactic variety black hole would seem to incorporate a one-way ticket *to* the

Re: Evidence for the simulation argument

2007-03-08 Thread Stathis Papaioannou
] *To:* everything-list@googlegroups.com *Sent:* Tuesday, March 06, 2007 8:46 PM *Subject:* Re: Evidence for the simulation argument SP wrote to BM: How so? The Many Worlds idea seems to imply that you survive no matter what. The consequences of natural selection obtain only within worlds which are law

Re: Evidence for the simulation argument

2007-03-07 Thread Russell Standish
So are sets of cardinality \aleph_2 or sets of cardinality \aleph_{\aleph_0}. On the other hand, one set of cardinality 2^\aleph_0 appears to be big enough to explain all of observed reality. Maybe Tegmarkism is going too far... On Wed, Mar 07, 2007 at 11:19:03AM +0330, Mohsen Ravanbakhsh

Re: Evidence for the simulation argument - and Thanks to Russell and Stathis

2007-03-07 Thread Mark Peaty
Firstly a big thank you to Russell Standish for providing that incredibly succinct 'bit stream' summary of universal-dovetailer ontology. [Though only a vocational mathematician would seriously call it 'very simple' even if it does have less than 1% of Bruno's word count for his essay on the

Re: Evidence for the simulation argument - and Thanks to Russell and Stathis

2007-03-07 Thread Stathis Papaioannou
On 3/8/07, Mark Peaty [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: NB: I hope that my imaginary destination in your speculation of possible post mortem exploits for my erstwhile sceptical soul is not a post-Freudian slip. I know that many of my contributions to this and other lists have lacked the erudite

Re: Evidence for the simulation argument

2007-03-06 Thread Mark Peaty
Thank you Bruno! You and Russell between you have managed to strike some sparks of illumination from the rocky inside of my skull. There is no beacon fire to report but I start to get a glimmering of why you want to *assume* comp and see where it leads. It seems that self-reference and

Re: Evidence for the simulation argument

2007-03-06 Thread Stathis Papaioannou
On 3/6/07, Mark Peaty [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: A human life must be a compilation of all these including the creation of internal [synaptic change, etc] structure/record which endow the ability to *be* the story. But when looking at this as a/n [infinity^infinity] Many Worlds affair, none of

Re: Evidence for the simulation argument

2007-03-06 Thread Brent Meeker
Stathis Papaioannou wrote: On 3/6/07, *Mark Peaty* [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: A human life must be a compilation of all these including the creation of internal [synaptic change, etc] structure/record which endow the ability to *be* the story. But

Re: Evidence for the simulation argument

2007-03-06 Thread Russell Standish
On Wed, Mar 07, 2007 at 12:46:32PM +1100, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: On 3/7/07, Brent Meeker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: How do you know that you are the same person from moment to moment in ordinary life? The physical processes in your brain create psychological continuity; that is,

Re: Evidence for the simulation argument

2007-03-06 Thread Jesse Mazer
Russell Standish wrote: Well there is a reason we don't observe them, due to observational selection effects tied to Occam's razor. This is written up in my Why Occams Razor paper. Nobody has shot down the argument yet, in spite of it being around on this list since 1999, and in spite of it

Re: Evidence for the simulation argument

2007-03-06 Thread Stathis Papaioannou
On 3/7/07, Jesse Mazer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Russell Standish wrote: Well there is a reason we don't observe them, due to observational selection effects tied to Occam's razor. This is written up in my Why Occams Razor paper. Nobody has shot down the argument yet, in spite of it being

Re: Evidence for the simulation argument

2007-03-06 Thread Russell Standish
On Wed, Mar 07, 2007 at 04:30:57PM +1100, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: On 3/7/07, Jesse Mazer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Russell Standish wrote: Well there is a reason we don't observe them, due to observational selection effects tied to Occam's razor. This is written up in my Why

Re: Evidence for the simulation argument

2007-03-06 Thread Mohsen Ravanbakhsh
*All actual measurements yield rational values. Using real numbers in the equations of physics is probably merely a convenience (since calculus is easier than finite differences). There is no evidence that defining an instantaneous state requires uncountable information.* What about the

Re: Evidence for the simulation argument

2007-03-05 Thread Mohsen Ravanbakhsh
I don't know if in the hypothesis of simulation, the conflict of Countable and Uncountable has been considered. When we're talking about a machine with an infinite power of computation, we're considering a TM which has a countable number of states, even if it's running an undecidable problem to

Re: Evidence for the simulation argument

2007-03-05 Thread Mark Peaty
Hello Moshen and welcome. I think it is a very good question, and succinctly put. I have been trying to ask the same question and get a plain-English answer, but without success. Of course, I could be missing 'the point' too, and it wouldn't be the first time by a long shot. :-) If there was

Re: Evidence for the simulation argument

2007-03-05 Thread Bruno Marchal
Le 05-mars-07, à 15:03, Mark Peaty a écrit : Nobody here has yet explained in plain-English why we have entropy. Oh well, surely, in the Many Worlds, that's just one of the universes that can happen! Not really. That would make the comp hyp or the everything idea trivial, and both the

Re: Evidence for the simulation argument

2007-03-05 Thread Brent Meeker
Mark Peaty wrote: Hello Moshen and welcome. I think it is a very good question, and succinctly put. I have been trying to ask the same question and get a plain-English answer, but without success. Of course, I could be missing 'the point' too, and it wouldn't be the first time by a

Re: Evidence for the simulation argument

2007-03-05 Thread John Mikes
Jason, after Danny's very interesting treatise your reply gave me a clue I completely misunderstood so far. As i wrote to Brent, my vocabulary is not your vocabulary and the meanings mix up. Simulation emerged to me as 'copying', while you lit up the little lamp to consider it as 'forming a

Re: Evidence for the simulation argument

2007-03-05 Thread Russell Standish
On Mon, Mar 05, 2007 at 04:31:23PM +0100, Bruno Marchal wrote: I will try. I will, by the same token, answer Mohsen question here: Mohsen: I don't know if in the hypothesis of simulation, the conflict of Countable and Uncountable has been considered. ... In particular,

Re: Evidence for the simulation argument

2007-03-05 Thread Stathis Papaioannou
On 3/6/07, Russell Standish [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Bruno's answer is right, but not necessarily the easiest to understand. A very simple way of putting it is to consider sampling a random bitstream. Every time a bit is sampled, the Multiverse branches with the observed bit being 0 or 1

Re: Evidence for the simulation argument

2007-03-05 Thread Russell Standish
On Tue, Mar 06, 2007 at 12:48:40PM +1100, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: On 3/6/07, Russell Standish [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Bruno's answer is right, but not necessarily the easiest to understand. A very simple way of putting it is to consider sampling a random bitstream. Every time a bit

  1   2   >